Would you sell your AF-D 2.8 zooms and buy AF-S Zooms

[Peter_S]

Need annother time your experienced advice.
I’m thinking about selling my 20-30, 35-70 and 80-200 all 2.8 AF-D zooms.
Additionally my 180 2.8 AF, 24 2.8 AF and the 50 1.4 AF.

I would by a 14-24 or a 16-35, a 70-200 AF-S, 20 1.8 and 50 1.4 all AF-S.

What would you do?

[MFloyd]

No experience with the older zooms, but I own a 16-35mm f/4 and the latest 70-200mm f/2.8E FL; and these are both outstanding lenses, in terms of optical quality, VR efficiency and AF responsiveness. 

[golunvolo]

I still have a 80-200 2.8 -I just used it for infrared work this morning- very capable lens still working but not in the same ligue of the 70-200 e.
   Not as dramatic but also a better performance of the 50mm 1.4g afs compared to the d version.

   All those 4 lenses I have used and still own.

[Bill Mellen]

Need annother time your experienced advice.
I’m thinking about selling my 20-30, 35-70 and 80-200 all 2.8 AF-D zooms.
Additionally my 180 2.8 AF, 24 2.8 AF and the 50 1.4 AF.

I would by a 14-24 or a 16-35, a 70-200 AF-S, 20 1.8 and 50 1.4 all AF-S.

What would you do?

I replaced my 35-70 AF and my 80-200 AFD with a 24-120 f/4 VR and a 70-200 f/4 VR and am happy with the choice.

Also replaced 20 2.8D, 50 1.4D and 85 1.8d with AFS versions.

All because I brace the camera with my left hand on my right shoulder and rest the lens body on my left elbow.  The AFS versions focus just fine that way while the AFD versions all dragged on my arm or my shirtsleeve.

For the most part, the picture quality is the same or better and the AFS lenses seem to focus better.

[Frank Fremerey]

I would not buy zooms at all, only use primes.

But: lens calculation and construction has made huge leaps forward in the last 20 years. There are still some older designs that match current offerings or have not been updated in a long time. But these are the exception not the rule. A lens like the 1.8/20G that came to market together with the D750 outperforms all earlier 20mm Nikkors by a significant distance. The 60G micro outperforms the 60D micro, the 1.8/35FX outperforms the 2.0/35D by a very long shot. The 85mm options were always very good, so the distance to earlier designs is not so large, but it is still there.

So far optical performance.

Earlier designs are often smaller and lighter and feel more sturdy due to the use of a lot of metal. Today I used the 1.4/35 Ai-S just for that reason: small and light and great performance anyway ... Performance is a function of taste with this lens.

[MILLIREHM]

Need annother time your experienced advice.
I’m thinking about selling my 20-30, 35-70 and 80-200 all 2.8 AF-D zooms.
Additionally my 180 2.8 AF, 24 2.8 AF and the 50 1.4 AF.

I would by a 14-24 or a 16-35, a 70-200 AF-S, 20 1.8 and 50 1.4 all AF-S.

What would you do?

In your case I would consider changing 20-30, 25-70 and 80-200 if AF-Speed is an issue in your work

In my case I would not sell of my 24-85/2,8-4, nor replace the 85mm f/1,4 AF-D with the AF-S Version
There is no existing AF-s replacement for 135 mm f/2 DC, 70-180 mm Micro,
There would also be no opportunity to replace a 200 mm AF-Micro if I owned that kind of lens

[John Geerts]

Size and weight of the 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are a pre.  Also the aperture ring can be convenient.  Quality of these lenses are pretty good.   The 80-200/2.8 is still on the sales list and the 35-70 was made till 2005.

[Jacques Pochoy]

I agree with Frank about primes and his viewpoint between AF-D and AF-S G ones ! Still, for practical purposes and having a paid job at my School of Architecture where I have to "dance" around guests, students, teachers, models, and renderings, I do use two zooms.
Mostly the 24-120mm f/4 AF-S VR (in replacement of the 24-85mm VR I gave to my daughter when her camera and lenses were stolen) and a 70-300 VR (not P) because it's light and cheap
With the DF, those two lenses seems effective and allows me some mobility while not having an anchor on the shoulder in the mean of a heavy bag.
Otherwise I tend to prefer AI, AI-s lenses, one on the camera, the other in the pocket, juggling between the 28/2.8 to the 135/2.8 Q (the 180/2.8 ED is fantastic but heavy) and of course all the in-between ranges !
Manual focus and the small rugged sizes of the old lenses tend to make me more conscious of what I'm shooting 
So zooms are OK but keep the primes, they'll be used some day 

[paul_k]

Only AF D lens I deliberately 'replaced' for an AF S version was my 2.8/80-200 AF D
It had been my trusted companion and bread and butter lens for nearly 20 years from my F801S/F90/F90X/F100 film shooting days
into my early forays in digital photography with the D70S/D1/D1X/D1H/D2
The softness when used wide open, partly because of taste, partly due to the max usable ISO of both film and digital camera's mentioned,
wasn't a problem for me then

But when I got a D800 in 2012, that softness was ruthlessly exposed
And as I used that lens for bread and butter work, I had to upgrade to a 2.8/70-200 VRII to be sure to have the fastest AF and get the sharp images possible (up to a certain level) for that type of shooting
But as 2.8/80-200 AF D starts getting offered at quite low/bottom prices, I'm considering to get one again, just for 'fun'

Have had a 2.8/35-70 AF D in the past, sold that lens though not out of desire for an AFS upgrade
Simply found the focal range not wide with 35mm, and not long enough with 70mm, for paid event shootings like weddings, or company events I mainly used it for
As I rarely shoot using a wide angle anyway, I didn't want to spend to much money on a replacement and got a 2nd hand 3.5-5.6/24-85 AFS (no the VR) instead, for the wider focal range, and because it was cheap

I'm quite/very satisfied with my 1.4/85 AF D and 2/135 DC, simply like the softer/less contrasty (compared to modern lenses like the Zeiss and Sigma's) image rendering of those (and other) older lenses, and even have started 'collecting' older pre Ai lenses for that reason, most recently a pre AI Nikkor P 2.5/105mm
Don't plan to replace them for an AFS version, and have spent the money thus 'saved' for a more recent lens with nevertheless a similar 'old fashioned' image rendering, the 1.4/58mm AFS

Also have a 1./85 AF D and a 1.4/50mm AF D, but as I don't use them for serious work (basically only use them as 'longer fixed focal lengths on my 'grab and go' D7100, together with the standard 18-55 kitlens I have left from my D70S) don't see any need to replace them for AFS versions either

[benveniste]

Need annother time your experienced advice.
I’m thinking about selling my 20-30, 35-70 and 80-200 all 2.8 AF-D zooms.
Additionally my 180 2.8 AF, 24 2.8 AF and the 50 1.4 AF.

I would by a 14-24 or a 16-35, a 70-200 AF-S, 20 1.8 and 50 1.4 all AF-S.

What would you do?

Short answer?  I already have.

• I sold my 20-35mm f/2.8 and replaced it with a 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S.  I'm now thinking about a replacement for the 17-35mm, since the second motor is about to fail.
• I sold my 80-200mm f/2.8D (one ring) and replaced it with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-II.
• I sold my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6~2.8 last month and haven't replaced it yet.

In each case, I had a reason beyond the fact they were "screwdriver" lenses.  With the 17-35mm, I got more width.  With the 70-200mm I got stabilization, which allowed me to capture a shot which eventually became a magazine cover.  And the 28-70mm was one of my least-used lenses; in the mid-range I used a 24-120mm for "walk-around" and a prime to "fill the gap" for planned shoots.  I also replaced my 85mm f/1.8D with a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM, and one of the reasons for choosing that lens over the 85mm f/1.4D was that like AF-S lenses, the Sigma allows for easier "touch-up" manual focus.

Before going out and spending 5 grand or so, think about your own reasons for wanting replacements.  I still use have the following "screwdriver" lenses -- a 20mm f/2.8, a 60mm f/2.8D, a 135mm f/2 DC, and a 180mm f/2.8D.  I'm in no hurry to replace any of them.  I did buy a 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, but only after losing my 50mm f/1.8D somewhere in Alaska.  Differences in focus speed will depend on the exact lens and camera body you're using.  On an F100 or D800, for example, the 50mm f/1.4G is no faster than the 50mm f/1.4D you own.  Nikon claims that the AF-S approach is more accurate as well, but I've never done an apples-to-apples test.  Modern lenses also have incremental improvements in lens coatings, but Nikon SIC is already quite good in this regard.

[gryphon1911]

I have a feeling that the AF-D lenses that I have will outlast the AF-S lenses.  Will it matter to me...maybe, maybe not.  For work, I can justify getting the "new hotness" as a tax write off.  I use "legacy" and "vintage" lenses now more than ever.  I just like the way they operate, the way they render.   So long as I can get my hands on a Nikon camera with a screw drive in the body - I'll keep using my AF-D lenses.

[Frank Fremerey]

@benveniste: lots of wise words

the 135 & 180 are lenses I would buy right away if there were current replacements for them but there are not ... 135/180 ...  absolute classic optics for outdoor portraits ... pity the did not do anything about them!

Get yourself a rental of current 24-120 options. There is PROGRESS.

AND: Yes, SIGMA, TAMRON, TOKINA, even SAMYANG have some incredble glass for small money nowadays. They all profit from the development in software and material science.

[David H. Hartman]

Peter,

You might consider keeping an AF-D type lens if you might need an aperture control ring now or in the future.

Dave

[richardHaw]

NO. NEVER. unless for VR 

[benveniste]

Get yourself a rental of current 24-120 options. There is PROGRESS.

I'm not sure what I'd rent.  I've owned both the non-VR and VR 24-120mm f/3.5~5.6 lenses in the past, and I've owned the 24-120mm f/4 since just after it came out.